SynthesisBulletin of the World Health Organization2026
Effect of donor exclusion criteria on blood safety and volume of donations: a systematic review of modelling studies.
Synthesis in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of donor exclusion criteria on blood safety and volume of donations: a systematic review of modelling studies.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effect of easing bans and deferral policies on blood donation from men who have sex with men on blood safety and volume from modelling studies. Methods: We searched four databases (PubMed®, Embase®, CINAHL and Web of Science) for modelling studies on the impact of replacing bans or deferrals on blood donations from men who have sex with men with shorter deferral periods or no deferrals. We synthesized and compared findings from the different modelling studies, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Findings: Fourteen publications were included in the study. All the studies estimated the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) residual risk of an HIV-infected blood donation being received, going undetected through screening and entering the blood supply. Despite medium to large increases in risks (up to three-fold) in relaxing donor policies for men who have sex with men, the absolute HIV residual risk remained very low in all scenarios, ranging between 0.05 and 1.1 HIV-positive units per million donations. The increase in donors ranged from 0.04% to 2.10%. No models covered other transfusion-transmissible infections such as syphilis or hepatitis C. Conclusion: Modelled HIV residual risk estimates increased slightly with relaxed policies on donations from men who have sex with men. However, differences in risk and blood volume estimates between different policies are generally very small. To support decisions on easing donor policies for men who have sex with men, models should also quantify residual risks for non-HIV transfusion-transmissible infections, such as syphilis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.